Jeffrey D. Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. If you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely.
This publishes Sunday through Thursday with the exception of 7 holidays. Also check out his Louisiana Legislature Log especially during legislative sessions (in "Louisiana Politics Blog Roll" below).

Spurred by a politicized
decision by one of the two regional authorities to pursue (if
somewhat hypocritically) jackpot
justice against alleged oil company practices that at best rests
on dubious claims, a number of bills were filed in the session of the
Louisiana Legislature to bring more accountability to entities that otherwise
have few constraints to act politically rather than in the best interests of
the people. What particularly galled those against these suits was contingency
fees that appear to have been negotiated against state law that could reward
trial lawyers with fees in the billions of dollars.

Most of these filed by state Sen.
Robert Adley, who until his retirement
in 2012 ran a gas management company, they represent various and disparate
approaches to injecting accountability into these boards, some focusing on
appointments to them, removals from them, powers exercisable, and organizational
questions. Other bills would negate in essence the questionable suit or would force it to be more specific and redirect any proceeds.

With those bills addressing the
ability to sue with contingency contracts and the suit moving and seemingly
headed to passage into law, and suit
supporters coming to terms with this, bills dealing with membership and
organization wait in the background. In part, this is because there is some
overlapping to them. For example, Adley’s moving SB
547 would make far more exacting the ability of any local government to
file a contingency-based suit above $50,000, and his progressing SB 553
would add authorities to other entities that have layers of state review over
hiring lawyers and contracting legally and add legislative clearance to
contingency contracts, while his heretofore unconsidered SB
629 would fold regional flood protection authorities into the executive
branch’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, headed by a board of
whom a majority of members are gubernatorial appointees or traditional allies.

The overlap comes in as, if all make
it into law, that concerning SB 629 this means that any contingency contract
attempted by an authority would need clearance at the state level. This came in
response to the questionable reaction that Atty. Gen. Buddy
Caldwell had in evaluating whether the suit met legal requirements for its
filing that mandate state review. Likely because he is an ally of trial
lawyers, Caldwell
punted on the matter. But in putting the two existing authorities under the
CPRA that would resolve the questions of ambiguity that gave Caldwell wiggle
room to argue he could not impede the suit.

Increasingly fighting a rearguard
action, opponents have come up with arguments against it that border on
desperation. A claim of unconstitutionality, because the bill’s movement of
authorities under the CPRA is said to transfer them from local government
entities to the executive branch, is meritless: the bill simply removes Art. VI Sec. 38
authorization from establishing authorities (that making them simultaneously
levee boards and regional authorities) and leaves only authorization under Art. VI Sec.
38.1 while placing it under CPRA organizationally. Its governance structure
remains the same as does its powers (as the latter section specifically grants
the same under Sections 40 and 41). This also moots the specious argument about
control of funding – it clearly continues to rest with the authorities.

And SB 629 by itself does not
affect the membership of the governing boards, contrary to the worries
expressed by some that their decision-making might become less locally-oriented
and impair them from acting swiftly in the case of emergencies. Again, the only
change from the current structure and powers of these agencies by the bill
would give essentially the state an unambiguous ability to veto legal
contractual decisions.

However, SB
79, also yet to have a committee hearing, would affect memberships, and on
the appointment side in a positive fashion as it balances
well the need for putting expertise on a board and making it accountable. But
according to an attorney with one of the authorities, the bill will be amended (its
current posture does not indicate this) to expand upon R.S. 38:330.1
provisions that allow for the governor to remove members upon the
recommendation of the board that have neglected duties or who have missed three
successive regular meetings, to make the governor unilaterally able to remove
such members for these reasons and for “violating a state law or violating
public policy.”

Certainly the violation of a
state law, upon conviction in court, should be enough justification to allow
the governor latitude on this matter. Still, the matter of “public policy” goes
too far, especially if contracting ability gets reined in, given the vagueness
of what that could be. Any of the three contracting bills would be a sufficient
check on authority abuses and have the salutary effect of cancelling unwise
actions, as opposed to a kind of undefined prior restraint that would exist
with the implicit threat of firing by an outside force over policy
disagreements.

Yet most interesting in
considering these four bills, where SB 547 would be the only one to abrogate
the existing suit and apply the strict measures to all local governments, SB
553 would check future authority suits, so would SB 629 but more
comprehensively and more under executive authority, and SB 79 would control
them through decisions on membership, it’s the last two that those not involved
with the suit fear the most. (And also there lies waiting Adley's SB 469, which would address the current suit and future ones by forcing them to be more specific and that would have money won by them put into a state fund for coastal restoration.) Just as the underwhelming
performance of the education establishment in East Baton Rouge Parish and
its political allies in opposing reform opened a Pandora’s box that launched
an effort to incorporate a new municipality in the parish, so has the
lawsuit brought scrutiny to the regional authorities that invites corrective
actions beyond just clamping down on nuisance suits.

And that’s probably a good thing.
The manifest
irresponsibility of politicians regarding past flood control efforts so
recognized by the public and policy-makers after the 2005 hurricane disasters
likely created too much enthusiasm to insulate flood protection bodies and overcompensated without sufficient regard for unintended
consequences of facilitating agencies in going rogue against the public
interest. As a desirable and needed corrective, all of these measures, minus
the ability to can regional authority members for policy disagreements with the
governor, deserve passage into law.

About Me

Subscribe To

Comment publishing requirements

You must be a registered user with an OpenID-compliant service to leave comments, which will be moderated. Any comments that do not address issues in the post for which they are intended will not be posted; neither will those that utterly lack intellectual coherence.